Too much fuel causes extreme bush fires, not climate change

What was Australia’s Environment Minister thinking?

Melissa Price succumbs to pagan witchcraft:

“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires; (in) my home state of Western Australia we’ve also got fires there,” [Melissa Price] told Sky News this morning. “There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”

L

WA

Let’s look at her home state. After 67 years of fire management in the giant, hot, dry state of WA, the trend is clear — the more prescribed area we burn, the less wildfire does. In the graph below the prescribed burns declined for forty years and wildfires increased for thirty. After the Dwellingup Fire in 1961 the state ramped up the preventative burns, and reduced wildfires.

Tough call — what do we do, redesign our energy system, pay billions, change our cars, our houses and our light globes in the hope that bush fires will be nicer, or do we just go back to doing what we used to do that worked?

As prescribed fire reduction declined, Wildfires increased in South West Australia.

Large wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:

an ignition source,

severe fire weather and,

a large contiguous accumulation of fuel.

Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).

We obviously can’t control the weather, nor can we hope to eliminate all possible avenues of ignition. The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage.

Does it work? Yes it does, as has been shown many times, over many years, by the experience of Western Australian forest managers. The “proof of the pudding” is the incidence of large wildfires in Western Australian forests over the last 50 years.

Or we could put up some windmills and solar panels to “stop the flames”.

h/t George and Pat

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 9.8/10 (88 votes cast)

Too much fuel causes extreme bush fires, not climate change, 9.8 out of 10 based on 88 ratings

I’m late to the party today so I’ll just nab this spot here to say that is a great graph Jo.

In the 21st Century the two low points on the Prescribed Burn line appear to be 2001-2 and 2011-12.

In each case, in the following year the red line tells us we had a conflagration.

In the subsequent year the the incompetent forest managers got busy and more than doubled the Prescribed Burns, with the result that the Wildfire Area was nullified.

What more evidence is needed to show that Prescribed Burns work?

The people responsible for this outrageous performance have shown that they are incompetent and irresponsible. They should be held personally liable for the destruction, death and economic loss they’ve caused.

“New Zealand is one of five countries combining forces to predict weather patterns around the globe, thanks to NIWA’s supercomputer. An international conference on the future of weather forecasting and climate modelling is taking place in Wellington this week, focusing on the UK Unified Model Partnership, which has been used for predicting the majority of the world’s weather for the past five years and allows forecasters to make predictions from hours out, to centuries.” Centuries?

“Along with New Zealand, the five core members of the partnership are the UK, Australia, India and South Korea; with Singapore, South Africa, Poland and the US Airforce as associates… Members of the Partnership are meeting in Wellington at the beginning of March 2019 to celebrate the achievements and outcomes of the past five years and to sign up to a further five year period.” Not another Five Year Plan – we’re doomed!

Huh. So if there isn’t dry, flammable fuel and there’s no ignition source, you don’t get major fires. Not sure such an argument will help. I don’t remember the last time logic and facts won a climate science discussion.

From a politicia’s point of view, her argument is as sound as it can get. She clearly knows that appropriate forest management would mitigate the likelihood, overall damage caused and severity of bushfires.

However, that involves spending money, fighting the Green Blob and having a backbone. Very few politicians can fulfill those requirements. So the easy answer is to blame climate change and it’s then out of their hands.

Politics now determines when the fire authority can do a burn. Grape growers are not going to be in favour of a burn that affects their grapes. They complain to their local member. So while there is fruit on their vines no burn off can occur nearby or downwind. Why have they been allowed to put in this crop near wooded ares that need regular burn offs?

So there are plenty of management issues. An increase in agricultural use has consequences.

When there is fruit on the vine its summer anyway not burn off weather and there are many months where there is nothing on the vine , so really they are just one more community group that influences scheduling rather than being a handbrake. The vineyard/winery owner who lost his place at Bunyip was on the news complaining about lack of burn offs in his area.

Yarpos, that is more or less correct for those vineyards established in areas of dry sclerophyll forest but not for wet scleropyll forest, as most of the burning the latter type of forest needs to be carried out in summer, as it dries out far more slowly after the wet season.

Geoff it’s when the fruit is at a certain stage of ripening that the grapes that it appears it can be affected by smoke. Here in the SW of WA some of the vineyards are surrounded by, or adjacent to karri forest. Karri forest takes a long time to dry out after the wet season so it has a narrow window of opportunity for burning during the dry season. This makes planning for karri forest burns difficult.

It should not be forgotten that these vineyards were established in recent years, half a century after prescribed burning was in place. Those who established them should have foreseen the conflict between the two practices.

I am not against someone “farming” this land. It is better than a state managed park or forest. They have skin in the game and something to lose. We will slowly solve this problem by better management and surveillance of flammable material. We should not howl everytime there is a bush fire. People who wish to live in or visit these regions will have to accept there is known risk. For those who lose everything we should provide aid, not charity.

Last Easter there was perfect weather here for burning off; one of the rare periods available. It was cancelled because the smoke might upset the snowflake tourists coming up here for their holiday. I was very annoyed about that. At the same time, some of those tourists light camp fires where they shouldn’t or go off leaving them unattended.
When we pointed out the burnable (and scruffy) flammable rubbish lying around our village, not least on the main road through it, the response from a council officer was on the lines of ‘everyone will be gone by the time fires reach it’…we were left stupified.

An example of the tourists Annie. About 1970 we got called out to a fire one weekend when there was a roaring hot westerly blowing. Once the fire was out we traced the source, and there set up at the foot of a big ironbark was a barbecue with blackened sausages still on the hotplate, the owners having decamped in a very big hurry; burnt ground leading out to the south east.

Another problem is hobby farms. Years ago we had a couple of adjoining farms occupied by farming families who knew about land management and lived permanently on-site.

Those farms were split into 25 acre blocks and sold off to city types for weekenders. So 2 adjoining farms became 20 adjoining farms all owned by absentees, none of who managed their properties adequately for bush or pasture overgrowth or had any idea about proper fire precautions. One genius set fire to his farm and burnt all the fence posts down between his place and ours.

Aside from the obvious general lack of burning off, changes in land occupancy can also have quite marked effects on fire behaviour.

Lacking brains in significant quantity it seems. We regularly come across campfires or fireplaces in old cabins that haven’t been put out, leaving us to do the right thing. That and the rubbish left behind is so frustrating.

Question: Was the “prescribed” burn area actually burnt
Listening to the spin on Victorian radio yesterday about “cool burn” areas by an emergency services bureaucrat … I’d say precious little backed by “green” councils who ban cleanups and fire prevention strategies so they can blame the catastrophic “climate change”.

The Royal Commission after Black Saturday in 2009 had an impact on power prices due to the acceleration of pole maintenance and line upgrades. I am unsure on the status of any underground cabling but doing all the was recommended would have been prohibitively expensive.

There is a huge amount of money and effort spent on fire fighting as well as fire losses. Like all things a little prevention can save a bundle of money; typically $1 spent on prevention can save $10 in losses.

Heard on 3AW this morning that in Vic controlled burns were down 50% in 2017/18 versus 2016/17, and many green councils make it very hard to get permits to clear anything. Deputy chief fire officer with Forest Fire Management (FFA) Victoria, Darrin McKenzie, said autumn burning this year was particularly challenging and the state only managed to achieve about 30 per cent of prescribed burning programs. Most of the 66,000 hectares of prescribed burning the state managed to achieve was condensed into a two-and-a-half week window. Also heard that CFA volunteer numbers are down after all the battles with the United Firefighters Union.
Meanwhile governments blame it all on climate change.

Ah ha that’s the bloke I heard.
All spin and bulltish.
Refused to answer the questions with facts.
Some councils have prosecuted people for taking fire protection measures, not unlike what happened to Black Saturday.
Insurance industry needs to stump up and take them to task for preventing risk management
Never likely, as they need to seem to be green friendly

In the olden days around here (Hunter Valley) Ian the boys in the bushfire brigade used to have working bees where they would burn off someone’s place on the weekend — authorised by a permit from the local captain or deputy under suitable fire conditions — and the land owner would bung on a barbie and shout the boys a carton for their trouble. Everyone went away happy after a team effort in the knowledge that a real future bushfire had been averted. It was a real community event, controlled and carried out by the local community, not like now.

The ‘other’ question is that even if a prescribed burn takes place, is follow up weed control conducted to check weed species to favour slow growing native species if they still exist in a hypothetical prescribed burn area?

I would add i have not been able to find CFA weeding, bush regeneration, blackberry swat teams or any other similar beneficial group. (The CFA dark ages)

Think of how many unemployed could learn about our heritage native species through the CFA if such a program existed. Many might even grow a passion for it, and take it with them as a fond reminder of practical fire mitigation, love of country, passion for learning, and other beneficial results, and fond remembrances..

The only one that i can remember ever working alongside was in Belgrave Puffing Billy Bridge. The group i worked with were entirely indepoendant and we begged the Selby CFA to conduct some burning at the bridge site area we were working on for years….On one occasion they did the burn and we merely went in after them with syringes of glyposate or paint brush to target any blackberry or other . It made our work so much easier and the results were ease of management from then on. We then moved to controlling onion weed and extended our range…..

My qualm is that these weeding and follow up groups should be a part of the CFA, not apart from them.

Perhaps preparing large areas in fire prone regions for “future” solar/ windmill farms would slip past the greenies and also prevent megafires? Of course, you would also need to link these areas with wide open “roads” for the “future” high tension wiring structures.

Question: Was the “prescribed” burn area actually in the chart burnt, or was it a nice number to put out there?
Listening to the spin on Victorian radio yesterday about “cool burn” areas in Gippsland, by an emergency services bureaucrat … I’d say precious little backed by “green” councils who ban cleanups and fire prevention strategies so they can blame the catastrophic “climate change”.

Malignant, out of control juvenile plantation forestry growth guarantee fungal quantities of highly inflammable juvenile trees at convenient heights for fire to climb up into the homogeneous canopy of such plantations that now litter a once biologically diverse Australian continent.

Even if pesticide and herbicide are used to diminish the species in these plantation forests to a single species of tree, it is still a perfect opportunity to follow up with weed control so that species such as blackberry bushes and fast growing weed species can be checked as they rise back through the ashes in coming months.

Does this kind of follow up ever happen after fire?

Hmmm…as predicted, record California precipitation ensures they have similar build up of fuel this year and the Orrovile Dam is already close to spillway levels…. again…California also has a problem with plantation tree farming of highly inflammable juvenile trees and poor fuel control prediction practices.

There is a ton of good evidence that the aboriginals – who had even less ability to deal with high-intensity fires than we do – dealt with “weeds” by burning as often as the bush would carry fire.

The “weeds” you are talking about, are native scrub species which regenerate from seen after a major fire. HOWEVER, if the area is burnt 2-3 times in quick succession, before the regenerating scrub has time to flower and seed, the seed-bank is severely reduced and the scrub is replaced by low-growing and shade-intolerant grasses and herbs.

No, after a fire is the perfect time to save forests from fast growing weed species that infiltrate. If there is anything native left in it, fire helps regenerate the bush.

Most all logging is now conducted in such a way as to sterilise the forest of all species in preparation for the conversion to a single species of tree.

Greed ensures that the ultra highly inflammable plantations are managed in such a way as to make fire breaks as inexpensive and narrow as possible to maximize profits., Couple that with a fire insurance policy and bob’s your uncle.

No, after a fire is the perfect time to save forests from fast growing weed species that infiltrate. If there is anything native left in it, fire helps regenerate the bush.

That’s rubbish (as is the rest of your post). Bushfires are vastly more intense nowadays and destroy far more than they ever did before because we have a policy of not allowing low intensity bushfires to occur. Low intensity bushfires do what you suggest, and that can be achieved with controlled burns. But sufficient controlled burns do not happen.

We are doing nothing to manage our forest other than hopeless attempts to put out horrific fires that should never occur. I go bush into our High Country regularly each year and have been observing how our forest management has declined over the last 40+ years. Nothing is done to reduce fuel loads, after a major bushfire, nothing is done to the forest other than allow things to return to the pre-fire state.

Urban ‘experts’ that never venture into the bush have no idea about the issues and how they can be addressed.

Actually, I’m not allowed to do anything in the High Country when it comes to forest management, that’s the purview of DEWLP. Now I won’t even be able to go to many places, as they are closed off for a year or more due to the hazards caused by the bushfires.

And on the issue of cattle, the High Country was better off when cattle were able to graze. No Green scheme has ever worked, only created undesirable and unintended consequences.

Don’t forget folks, only a few weeks back ES was telling us that old growth eucalypt forest is a natural firebreak and bushfires don’t crown. It’s all the fault of plantations despite the fact that the majority of bad fires are in natural UNMANAGED bushland.

Bemused, are you and yours all O.K. after this latest event. I know you are “down that way ” so best wishes. My daughters house was a few k’s west of the Bunyip fire when it started and I did a couple of days fire watch. While we had some minor concerns and lots of burnt offerings falling from the sky a wind change started moving the fire east of where we were. Good luck for us converts to misfortune for others, and that very difficult emotional conundrum of happy / sad.
Up here in the low part of the high country fuel reduction burns all occur outside the park. Big ( huge ) efforts go into stopping any fires that do occur from getting into the protected areas.
I know that long standing families in my area talk of open grass land between giant trees, galloping horses through the forest and taking horses and drays “any where” so without doubt things have changed. I can still hear an older chap telling me “every time granddad and dad brought the cattle out in autumn they just dropped burning matches to burn the rubbish and get a good flush of grass in spring”

We’re OK at the moment. We copped the smoke from the Bunyip fires, but there was also a fire much closer in Yinnar that gave us even more smoke. The sunsets were pretty awesome.

When I first started going bush and camping throughout the High Country 40+ years ago, you could walk just about anywhere in the bush fairly unhindered. I’d go fishing with family and mates and you could walk parallel to rivers like the Macalister without a problem. Not now and often you can’t even get to river banks because of the scrub and blackberries.

I’ve slowly watched our High Country forests virtually impenetrable due to the undergrowth. The fuel loads just keep increasing and the fires are worse every decade. If global warming was real, then the Greens are pushing policies that will see the High Country become a lifeless, cremated, landscape.

The owner of a Tonimbuk winery destroyed by bushfire said his property might have been spared if only the Victorian Government had pursued a more active fuel reduction policy.
…
Mr Clarke is convinced the fire, which was sparked by dry lightning strikes in the Bunyip State Park last week, was exacerbated by the dense bushland that had been left to flourish behind his property.

“I’ve been begging them [Forest Fire Management Victoria] for 20 years to burn off the state forest at the back of our place and still to this day it hasn’t happened,” he said.

No fuel load burns for 20 years eh? And Price blames global warming which hasn’t been happening for those 20 years?
What chance do we have if even the Liberal Party cannot tell the truth?

I wonder what the owner did , knowing what he knew, in the last 20 years to reduce his own fire risks along the line of clearing trees around the assets, green lawns, evergreen trees, water supply, sprinklers, gutter guards, metal fly screens and so on? May have done a lot , but we never hear that side of the story , only what the government hasnt done. There was a remarkable picture of a house sitting in the middle of a burnt out field, totally intact. That never gets covered.

The was another lady talking about what she lost and how as the fires approached “I didnt know what to take” after all that has happened, after all that has been said and promoted, she hadnt thought about it and didnt know what to take.

All sounds harsh I know, and of course you can prepare and still be burnt out depending what happens on the day. However, we have all been told and in recent memory seen catastrophic loss of life and property in our country. If you live in a bushfire area and choose to put your head in the sand then that will have consequences.

Yarpos these fires on the edge of cities are in areas that urban people move to without real understanding. Some have blind faith in good luck or even the ability of government to protect them. Both assumptions of course are completely wrong. The old adage that the lord helps those that help them selves rings true. Pick your properties carefully, site your house for safety, not the best view and KEEP YOUR AREA CLEAN. Big trees don’t easily burn if there is no ground fuel to support the heat.

Not quite right EV. All vegetation drops litter. Whether thats leaves and twigs or big branches that fall, this accumulates with or without understorey, so twenty years of build up still gives a huge fuel load

“And the reason there is not as much ground fuel is because big trees out-compete both weeds and other for sunlight making fuel on the ground very diminished.”

NO. The old growth forest you like so much is botanically classed as Tall OPEN Forest or OPEN Forest. Note the OPEN bit (based on projective foliage cover, if you know what that is). That’s forest such as Mountain Ash. It indicates that there is ample light reaching the ground to sustain lower growth strata. In fact eucalypt canopies are quite sparse. Closed forest is rainforest by the way. You still won’t admit there is such a thing as understorey under tall open forests, as I have pointed out to you previously. There are multiple layers of understorey in tall open forest, it isn’t just 300 foot trees and bare ground! Every stratum in a forest contributes its branches and leaf litter to the total fuel load.

You’re constantly talking about weeds like blackberry which indicates that you are only used to dealing with heavily degraded outer-urban forest patches and peripheral forest areas, not the real deal. I’m beginning to think you have never been into a real forest.

The factor that ultimately determines fuel loads in forests is the time interval between fires as Sambar says. Given an extended fire interval, any drier forest type will build up enough fuel load to burn fiercely, especially eucalypt forests that are noted for shedding branches. Height is no protection in a hot fire.

So last year in May in south western WA
Bushfires near the WA town of Albany have sparked a blame game between farmers and authorities with many questioning why prescribed burns were conducted, despite an unfavourable weather forecast and multiple warnings that conditions were about to change. Curtin University Professor and botanist Kingsley Dixon questioned the value of burn-offs. “We’ve been on a juggernaut since the 1960′s believing that we protect people, property and key assets by burning the forest,” professor Dixon said. “Prescribed burning itself is leading to greater impact… broad-scale burning has been proven to be ineffective.”

The burns themselves are a danger, and the period in which you can conduct these burns is shrinking. Also the 6 year frequency is changing the types of regrowth, leading to more R-Value plants which tend to add to the fuel load, as the grow fast, but die off quickly.

The other hypothesis which is also true is that there is less forest to burn – this is supported by the WA DBCA which is now moving logging into previously protected areas.

Indigenous groups were burning off with great success and still do up north , around here there are great examples of what works and what doesn’t as far as preventative burns and also logging .
Unfortunately Nat parks are well behind on their burns but resources hamper a lot of their work as do interference from greens and other politicians.
There has been no burns in the hills behind us for at least thirty years and probably more with some areas the fuel loads are ridiculous and these are areas that were once used as firewood gathering areas but now Nat park .
Most people don’t realise how much red tape is involved with a controlled burn .
Some controlled burns do get away it’s a risk but a risk that’s worth it .

I dont buy into the mythology of a tiny population of dispersed indigenous tribes effectively managing anything apart from their own survival. I think Nature and especially lightning did the heavy lifting. But thats just me.

Dunno, if you read “The Greatest Estate On Earth” the aborigines managed the entire continent not for weed control but rather to promote a better outcome for their own existence. When native peoples burn forests and grass lands its called living in harmony with nature. If others do the same thing it’s called environmental vandalism.

Definition of a weed is “any plant that is not desired to be there” so if you have a beautiful lawn with a giant oak tree growing in it, and you don’t like the oak, thats a weed. After fires in the forest the first things that regenerate are ” fire weeds” this is the technical term for the first flush of growth after a fire. Some of these weeds are native plants like wattles which are highly benificial as nitrogen fixers in the soil, others like blackberrys not so desirable but they do provide some erosion control. Hard to know the answers and every case will be different.

“It was home to the slowest growing plants on the plnaet…….back then.”

You have no idea what you are talking about. Australia has some of the fastest growing plants on Earth. Flooded Gum (E. grandis) has the record for hardwood growth with trees near Coffs Harbour clocked at nearly 50 ft growth from seed in their first 2 years. Our Acacias are noted for super fast growth especially after fire. I have seen Kangaroo Apple (Solanum aviculare) grow about 2 m high in a month to cover bare ground after a devastating hot fire on ground not burnt for many years.

I’ve seen this ‘Biggest Estate on Earth’ by Bill Gammage mentioned here over the years as sound evidence of pre colonial Aboriginal land management and after looking over it I’d say a lot of writers artistic license is heavily laid on throughout the text, its the same as people accepting Gore’s ‘An inconvenient truth’ as an authority on atmospheric science.

I know a lot will disagree for many reasons but I believe the book is a product of the post war university and government invention of Aboriginal history created for political reasons that was a step in the long march through the institutions, making any actual historic evidence obsolete as Marxist succession dictates the evolution of doctrines.

Yarpos over 50,000 years the indigenous population picked up deadwood along their walking trails. This would have helped as an escape, but when a dry lighting bolt starts a bonfire in a big wind the eucalyptus explodes and crowns. This is hell on earth.

Absolute rubbish Peter Fitzroy. Firstly the burn near Albany began five days before the severe weather was predicted. Not what you would have heard on the ABC of course. Secondly almost no areas are burnt on a 6 year rotation. How I wish they were. Quoting Kingsley Dixon is no recommendation.

“broad-scale burning has been proven to be ineffective.” This statement is demonstrably false, the graph shown above is evidence of that. I was involved in pre and post burn/fire monitoring for a period of fifteen years. That included plotting of pre burn plant numbers and species, and also ground truthing of satellite imagery of burnt areas.

Kinglsey Dixon may know what happens in his models. I and my colleagues know what happens in the real world.

And the 7 day outlook was saying do not burn.
The graph is not illustrative of anything. There are 2 lines, but the link is only implied, not proven, what of rainfall, forest reduction, temperature, fuel load estimations etc etc.
Like you, I worked on fire modeling, including surveys, etc etc. I can tell you that if you get the frequency wrong, controlled burns are worse for fuel load than not burning at all.
I would also cite this http://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/WF17061, as evidence that broadscale burning is stupid.

Science? That’s exactly what I was doing. When you have spent thousands of hours collecting data on fire effects; when you have spent decades in the very environment that we are discussing here; when you have done eighteen years in fire surveillance, as I have in all three, comeback and talk to me.

I guess we are all waiting to see that you have just had to have the last say.

There is little that interests a progressive less than actual solutions to problems, validated by data from past experience. If the solutions were also cost effective and easy….well three strikes and you are out, or a taken wicket, if you prefer.

Planting trees absorbs Co2, stabilizes the ground, and creates shade on a sunny day and harvestable wood over time. Properly managed, tree farms can both reduce carbon dioxide and produce a profit. One would therefore never mention them in the panoply of ‘solutions’ such as giving up air travel.

Nuclear power can seamlessly replace other power generation, and be self-sustaining with breeder reactors, and can be made in range of sizes to power a single ship (or a spacecraft) or a whole city. Little or no Carbon dioxide release. So that can’t be part of the solution…it’s more fun to speculate on killing all the cows and forcing tofu-burgers on the masses: yum yum.

In a similar vein, you’d think that areas that suffer periodic drought but also have periodic wet years, might build water storage.
You’d be wrong, of course. Eschew preparation, then ration when necessary is the progressive way.

Then, some of the same people who are hammering on us that we ignore ‘science’ refuse to vaccinate their kids and we see epidemics, in the first world, of illnesses we thought were gone two generations ago. This problem may fade, however, as many of the same folks are now declining to have children because the world’s gonna end, you know. Darwin at work there, friends.

So why would anyone think that simply clearing out excess fuel might prevent forest fires. Gosh, I loved Smokey the Bear telling me “only you can prevent forest fires”, but he’s retires, I guess because he was culturally appropriated from somewhere.

PS. The story of the original Smokey being ferried to Washington DC in a Piper Cub is hilarious.

PPS. Commenting here is too much fun. Time to dig in, ante up, and help Jo out folks. Freedom ain’t free.

You can’t completely absolve CO2 in this one. CO2 does cause global greening which means that more fuel will grow especially in marginally rainy years. This should compel communities to be more diligent in clearing fuels and brush. Unfortunately, environmentalists have put many road blocks in the way of good forest management practices.

Yes you are correct RW. Higher CO2 level means more productive forest. It’s when/if CO2 levels fall, and the forests can no longer sustain the same level of growth that the fuel levels will increase sharply for a time. As the basal area of mature forest is increasing with increasing CO2 level, when that level falls some mature trees will almost certainly die as the result of competition.

Dare I say that state governments have been thoroughly infiltrated by large numbers of climate warriors who have “championed” the environment through measures such as strictly controlling tree clearance and denying permits for hazard reduction burns.

It was plainly evident in Queensland in 1994 with the overreach of environmentalists in the government’s Dept. of Environment and Heritage, later to be renamed as the EPA, with the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act in 1994. I worked in local government in enforcement and knew many of the eco-warriors and their agenda and zeal was plain then – no sacrifice was too large for the environment – their problem was they were simply a decade or two early.

Queensland has been reducing hazard burns for decades now but is usually lucky due to a normally wet summer.

Mass hysteria over climate alarm is now thoroughly entrenched I cannot see it ending.

Yep, it’s the summer-dry regions like Vic and S California that are going to cop the worst. (Vic copped the world’s worst in 1851.) You only have to check the records to know that Melbourne gets a lot less rain than Sydney or the midcoast of NSW. Its driest month is January, and February isn’t much better. Adelaide is naturally dry and it’s driest in January. Perth is crazy dry in January/February. That’s summer! When the north of Australia was soaked in 1893 and 2019 guess what was not falling in South Australia.

What are you going to do when the temps soar to summer levels and no rain whatever falls for a month or even two+ (Adelaide 1848, right when Port Macquarie was copping a seemingly impossible drenching)?

Here on the midcoast of NSW fire is a grave but occasional threat because our summer months are wet. When they’re not (as this year) things still aren’t too bad provided the winds are oceanic. It’s another matter if you have westerlies and drought in summer, but that’s more usual in late winter/spring, which is our actual fire season. Here the very worst fires are not really crown fires.

Fire in Southern Australia is a built-in problem which nothing can change. 1851 or 1961 or 1939 or 2009…you need extreme on-going measures for an extreme on-going situation. WA took itself out of the fire headlines for decades. I wonder how?

I don’t wonder about the type of people who would love to see WA back in the fire headlines. They’ve become a very familiar type lately, haven’t they?

In ancient times, the pagans used to sacrifice thier children ( alive ) to thier false god, Molech by burning them alive.

Nasty business…..

Or put simply – are we seeing a resurgence of a pagan mindset, providing the conditions that ammonts to publically undeclared human sacrifices in the flames, sacrificed to the false green “gods” of the extreme green movement?

“And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.”
( Leviticus 18:21 )

“Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.”
( Leviticus 20:2 )

In 2003, bushfires destroyed much of South Canberra. The fires started in areas of southern NSW where the greenies had not allowed cool season burning. The fires would have destroyed most of Canberra except that the pine forests that separated North and South Canberra had been burned and year earlier. It was alleged that someone was walking home through the pine forests early on New Years Day 2002 and felt cold so he lit a fire that escaped and burnt the pine forest.

The fires would have destroyed most of Canberra except that the pine forests that separated North and South Canberra had been burned and year earlier. It was alleged that someone was walking home through the pine forests early on New Years Day 2002 and felt cold so he lit a fire that escaped and burnt the pine forest.

Nonsense.

There was no pine forest separating North Canberra (Belconnen) from South Canberra (Duffy etc – where the fire in fact came out of the pine forest) in 2003 or at any earlier date.

I can still recall the flames in the trees, the tents of several families we were staying with, the wind and sparks and a strange absence of fear.

The were several factors in my feeling of security: yes I was with my parents, but more importantly it was obvious that there were safe spots available.

The fire zone was bounded by a road on one side and a 10 metre wide strip of sand near the ultimate reassurance, the water.
Amazingly the tents survived because they were in a clearing and we watched as the fire raged into the night.

If a two year old can sense important things about fire why can’t grown politicians.

Possibly the answer lies in experience. I was always able to muck around near our homes coal fired oven and cooking top, poking the fire and feeding it. There were also fires in the back yard. I loved controlled fire.

Unfortunately our political class would have no appreciation of fire and wonder why huge amounts of property damage occur and why 176 Victorians have to die by fire.

Long time since there were tin sheds at Fingal KK, my most favourite part of the world. Don’t know if you’re aware, there have been 2 big fires go through to Fingal in the past 10 years. One started near the old Gan Gan army camp and burnt due east straight across the national park through to the back of Millionaires Row (Garuwa St) on the western side of Fingal. Stopped at the back doors of the homes.

The other was in 2014 up on the headlands south of Barry Park. It was a doozy because that area was choked with years of unburnt growth. I hiked through my favourite track there about a week after the fire and it was just bare sand and an odd blackened tree stump here and there, like a nuclear blast zone. I went back again 3 weeks later after a shower of rain and there was vegetation almost up to my shoulders. I’ve seen a lot of bush but I’ve never seen bush regenerate like that.

The funny part was that after the fire went through they found piles of hundreds of undersized abalone shells exposed where their poachers thought they would never be found. Karma.

They already know what will work but they don’t want what they do to work. That way, when it fails as planned, they can double down on what doesn’t work. Then keep doing it until there is nothing left to double down with.

They don’t want to stop the fires, they want to stop you – each and every one of you. They will keep on doing that until you stop them.

I’m afraid that is the reality. How else do you explain such wilful ignorance and inaction. Maybe sueing councils and government massively for loss of life, loss of health and loss of property might bring them to their senses.

Don’t know how we can successfully sue councils Annie, thats like sueing ourselves. Council looses the case has to pay out, insurance goes up council rates go up.
Sort of flogging a dead horse. I’m still with you though,if only we had some recourse to hold some one or some entity accountable. If wrong decisions are made then someone has to bear that responsability

Sue the Council Officers. The middle ranks will probably escape on a technical hitch, but their careers will suffer as they won’t be able to upgrade into higher paid jobs. That lesson will resound though the ranks of middle management in Councils all over Australia.
Just one successful prosecution of a Council CEO or immediate underling would be enough to bring public safety back into priority.

Melissa Price is one more reason to not vote Liberal, either for the House or the Senate. Not only is she ignorant (or purposely trying to play both sides) but another example of Scott Morrison’s ineptitude. Price, the approval of Snowy 2.0, and Ida Buttrose !!! as the new ABC chair.
We must put our efforts into control of the Senate with One Nation or Australian Conservatives. There is no way the Liberals will win the next election, nor should they.

Agree. Both major parties need to be smashed and the Senate controlled by ACP and ON. That way we might have half a chance of avoiding a crash and burn. Otherwise, forget it. If the Senate still ends up in control of the left leaning independents down we go for sure.

Around 130,000 years ago climate zone change in the land we call Australia resulted in the rainforests being replaced over time with the “bush” we now see, vegetation that thrives on fire for regrowth and germination of seeds.

Natural fire events from lightning strikes in the drier conditions and certain birds took advantage of the bushfires to spread the fire with burning twigs. No doubt the migrants that settled here from about 65,000 years ago observed nature and realised how much easier it was to walk around when the bushland is not a tangle of undergrowth and ground litter. And the native grasses after burning produced regrowth and food that attracted animals close to camp sites as a food source. The native grass seeds were harvested to eat.

The traditional seasonal burning by the Australian Aborigines was obviously based on the natural cycles and fires. Today in the WA Kimberly Region and NT Kakadu National Park traditional seasonal burning is again being practised using modern methods, such as spreading the fire from helicopters. Rangers including people of indigenous ancestry are involved.

The modern extreme Green protection of the bushland is misguided stupidity and ignores the traditional seasonal burning history.

Cattlemen who took advantage of native grasslands, such as the Snowy Mountains high country in Victoria, used to burn the areas as they left with their cattle in preparation for the next grazing period. When Sydney Town was established in New South Wales cattle went missing regularly and the settlers believed they were stolen however, when the now Camden District was explored south west of Sydney cattle were found living on native grasslands near to water sources.

The Greens represent socialism and globalism masquerading as environmentalism. It is worrying that Coalition Government and Labor Opposition MPs effectively support their agendas.

The graph above just about says it all. We learn (or used to) from major events such as the 1961 Dwellingup fires in W.A. and put those learning points into practice through regulations and enforcement, until the generation which learnt is supplanted by the next generation who always know better than the dinosaurs they replace, so the cycle is repeated. Those who learnt are effective for around 20-25 years when they start to be replaced by the inexperienced next generation. This is particularly apparent over the last 35-40 years when personal experience is out-weighed by the “science”, especially where it is supported by computer based theories – “How would he know? The computer says it couldn’t do that!”. This change is most obvious in the bureaucratic regulatory authorities and in the political arena.

With respect to prescribed burns in forest areas, the Dwellingup fires resulted in the W.A, Forest Dept. (as it was then) adopting a 7 year cycle whereby fire prone areas were subject to a “cool burn” every 7 years. As the graph shows this was effective for around 20-25 years (even though there was often a shortfall in the burn areas), with few wild fires and those which did occur were relatively small and easily managed.

As we all know, 3 factors are needed for a fire to occur and continue – heat, oxygen (air) and fuel. Man cannot control the heat or oxygen, so we must manage the fuel, and as our Indigenous forebears knew, we can only do that by regular burning of the understorey.

the Coalition have bought into the election will be about “climate change” meme.

don’t underestimate the following:

4 Mar: RenewEconomy: Scientists slap down Australia government over fake climate claims
by Sophie Vorrath
But the timing is also important in terms of the election. And the federal Coalition – of all parties – should be heeding the call, as evidence mounts that voters, even Liberal and National ones, care deeply about climate.

Even the Murdoch press can see that. An “exclusive” story by The Australian’s associate editor on Monday reports that former competitive skier Zali Steggall is set to steal the seat of Warringah from former PM Tony Abbott, from a platform of strong action on climate and renewables.

***The story says Steggall’s campaign has scored the backing of “wealthy investors who want immediate action on climate change” and who have a financial stake in the shift away from coal, to renewables.

And until the RET is repealed the incentive for this profiteering guarantees there will be more and more of it; kill the RET and all these investors must immediately head elsewhere in quest of such ill gained booty.

7 Feb: ABC: Former fire chief calls for more planned burns as fuel loads reach Black Saturday levels
By Ben Knight
A Victorian forest fire chief who quit following Black Saturday is warning a combination of fear about planned burns and increasing forest fuel loads is putting the state at risk of deadly bushfires.
When the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission handed down its report in 2010, it was sharply critical of the Victorian Government’s lack of prescribed burning…

“[The commission] is concerned that the state has maintained a minimalist approach to prescribed burning despite recent official or independent reports and inquiries, all of which have recommended increasing the prescribed-burning program.”
As a result, Victoria’s forests had been allowed to continue building up fuel loads, “…adding to the likelihood of more intense bushfires and thereby placing firefighters and communities at greater risk”.
The commission recommended a doubling of the prescribed burning program, and set an annual target of 5 per cent of public land — up from less than 2 per cent before Black Saturday…

“There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”

There is no doubt repeating asinine and cool memes has rotted the brains of the general public and politicians.
On a side note.In the blue mts they haver virtually stopped backburns.
Its $CO2 climate crazy virtual signalling car driving connected to the grid loonies up here.
The last back burn I watched was when they dropped the initial flares onto the the wrong side of the river where there are no houses just national park.
Brilliant work..

Many more people will die and properties lost from bushfires because of green policies of not allowing burning of excess fuel loads or even firewood collection (banned many places in Victoriastan). The Aboriginals were constantly burning forests. While this was not natural, it’s what they did and caused the Australian bush to evolve to what it became. It should continue so lives and property can be saved.

Thanks for this Jo and the Bolter covered this on his show last night including the stupid claims by Price.
This is is O/T but looks at McIntyre’s endless fight to have the unaltered Law Dome series included in the IPCC reports. I just posted this comment at Don Aitkin’s site.

BTW have a look at how Steve McIntyre pulls apart the 2017 Stenni et al study on Antarctic temps over the last 2,000 years.
The Law Dome study temps must be hidden at all costs, but even so modern Antarctic temps are very low compared to the last 2K.
Of course he forced the retraction of the earlier PAGES 2K study and Karoly had to thank him for his findings in the blog comments at that time. In the yank jargon McIntyre whipped their arse and there were a lot of clueless backsides to whip in that monster study. Gergis, Karoly etc,etc also hid the Law Dome study.
If you look at the study graph you’ll understand why and Steve tried to have it included in the IPCC AR4 report at that time. His fellow reviewers flew into a panic and managed to keep it out of the report. What a con and what fra-dsters these people are and Steve can hold his head high amidst these intellectual runts.
He again talks about upside down Mann in this post who is either a hopeless scientific clown or something much worse. But Steve is very lucky to have such maths , science, data and stats skills plus integrity to win the day. He won the top schoolboy prize for maths in Canada and used his data, stats skills in mining projects throughout his working life.

Having grown up in the Perth hills and had a couple of bushfires right in the dace, nah, prescribed burns help, but arent the b al and end all. Too often and habitat destruction becomes the biggest issue. Changes the composition of the vegetation to something that burns better. Basically, chose to live in the forest, learn to live with fires. Fail that and its evolution in action.

And as a funny aside, seen the TV ratings of late??

The Skynews after dark froth at the mouth brigade are rating 40-50k, Yay!!

There is of course SkyNews channel pay television and free to air WIN SkyNews free to air.

“Ahead of the launch of Sky News on WIN later this year, Sky News has reported its ratings for the first half of 2018 with total average viewership increasing by 9%, reaching over one million people a week through Foxtel.

A large portion of this comes from its weeknight audience, with average viewership increasing by 25% since last year, reaching over half a million people each week.

Credlin, anchored by Peta Credlin weeknights at 6pm, is the number one program in its timeslot across Foxtel, recording growth of 166% year-on-year, reaching an average weekly audience of 208,000.

The Bolt Report, anchored by Andrew Bolt weeknights at 7pm, has seen a 36% increase and an average weekly reach of 239,000.

Paul Murray LIVE, hosted by Paul Murray each Sunday-Thursday at 9pm, is the number one nightly program on Foxtel in its timeslot, reaching an average 268,000 per week. Sunday nights have delivered the biggest weekly audience increase for Paul Murray LIVE, is up 139%.

The weeknight 8pm timeslot with the Monday and Thursday editions of Outsiders, anchored by Ross Cameron and Rowan Dean, is up 84% and 105%

On Tuesdays Jones & Co, anchored by Alan Jones and Peta Credlin, is up 29% while Graham Richardson’s Wednesday program, Richo, has recorded a 54% increase.

Outsiders’ 9am Sunday program has increased audience by 24% year-on-year, while Kenny on Sunday anchored by Chris Kenny at 7pm has recorded audience growth of 158%.

hurricanes & flooding caused by CAGW too.
while the House Dems begin a thousand anti-Trump investigations, the RINOS are just as busy investigating the ongoing coup attempt against President Trump? no.

Updated 6 Mar: Bloomberg: Republicans Who Couldn’t Beat Climate Debate Now Seek to Join It
By Ari Natter
After years of sowing doubt, some are seeking new strategy
‘It’s just not worth the fight anymore,’ one lawmaker says
Representative John Shimkus once issued a forceful rejection of climate science at a congressional hearing, invoking the Bible and declaring that “Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over.”
Last month, in a turnabout, the Illinois Republican signed onto a letter with the top Republican of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that said “prudent steps should be taken to address current and future climate risks.”
“It’s just not worth the fight anymore,” Shimkus said in an interview when asked about his changing stance on climate change. “Let’s just see what we can do to address it and not hurt the economy.”

Shimkus is among a number of Republicans who — after years of sowing doubt about climate change or ignoring it altogether — are scrambling to confront the science they once rejected. They are holding hearings on the issue, beginning with one Tuesday. And they have pledged to invest in technologies to mitigate its impact and are openly talking about the need for taking action…

***The shift in posture follows the public’s growing anxiety after catastrophic hurricanes, flooding and wildfires linked to global warming. Fully 74 percent of registered voters think global warming is happening and 67 percent said they are worried it, according to polling conducted by Yale Program on Climate Change Communication…

Moreover, Democrats have seized the issue with populist fever — even proposing a sweeping plan to phase out climate-warming gas emissions through a “Green New Deal.”
“Members are openly using the term climate change,” Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, from oil-rich Alaska, said of her GOP colleagues in an interview. “You are not seeing this kind of dismissive attitude but more open conversations about some of the challenges, some of the technologies we can look to, some of the solutions.”

To be sure, the party hasn’t gone completely green. It hasn’t passed any major proposals to combat climate change and generally supports Trump administration policies to roll back environmental regulation…
Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and has long acknowledged climate change, vowed on Tuesday to prioritize the phenomena during the panel’s first hearing on the topic since 2012, where she outlined how global warming has been devastating her home state from thinning sea ice to drought.
“In Alaska, our view is that we have no choice here,” Murkowski said.
Additional GOP controlled-committees plan to follow with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, Murkowski said in an interview. “It is very much a multicommittee effort,” she said…

Other Republicans have been meeting in small groups to come up with a strategy on the issue: Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and former 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, now a senator representing Utah.
“There is a growing consensus on our side that man-made emissions are contributing to global warming, that the ‘green deal’ is absurd, and we should be able to find a more appropriate solution to the problem,” Graham said in an interview, adding he had recently been discussing the issue with Romney, who has called climate change a critical issue…

1 Mar: Financial Post: Trump’s new climate committee could welcome the world’s smartest global-warming skeptics
Make way for the scientific misfits and incompetents the press has castigated for putting the planet in peril by questioning climate change
by Lawrence Solomon

For decades, the world has heard from the so-called “97 per cent” of scientists said to believe that the planet faces an existential threat from global warming. Soon, through the Presidential Committee on Climate Security that the White House is today contemplating, we may be hearing from “the deniers” said to populate the other three per cent — i.e., the scientific misfits and incompetents that the press has castigated for putting the planet in peril by questioning climate change.

Some misfits, some incompetents. The head of the committee would be William Happer, currently a senior director at the National Security Council who oversaw a US$3-billion research budget in the first Bush administration as Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy. In Happer’s academic career as a professor at Columbia and Princeton universities, he published some 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers and became a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

White House’s plans to counter climate science reports ‘will erode our national security, 58 former officials warn
Washington Post – 6h ago
More than four dozen former military and intelligence officials are rebuking President Trump for planning to counter the government’s own…

5 Mar: TheVerge: Former officials urge Trump to stop undermining climate science
‘Let’s drop the politics, and allow our national security and science agencies to do their jobs.’
By Rachel Becker
Nearly 60 former leaders in the military and national security community sent a letter today urging President Trump not to subject the government’s own authoritative climate reports to an apparently partisan review, The Washington Post reports.

The letter references the Post’s recent report that the National Security Council may establish a panel of federal scientists to “reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet.”…

“A committee designed to undermine the many years of work they have done will weaken our ability to respond to real threats, putting American lives at risk,” reads the letter, signed by big names like former Secretary of State John Kerry. “Imposing a political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments that depend on them, will erode our national security,” says the letter, which was published today (LINK) by the Center for Climate and Security and the American Security Project…

5 Mar: WashingtonExaminer: John Kerry, Chuck Hagel lead former national security officials in rebuke of Trump’s climate skeptic panel
by Josh Siegel
“Let’s drop the politics, and allow our national security and science agencies to do their jobs.”
Retired four-star Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a Trump critic, also joined the letter…
The plan for the panel is to first to investigate the science underlying the National Climate Assessment, completed by U.S. government researchers across 13 federal agencies and released in November 2017. That assessment concluded that climate change is already affecting the country and is caused by humans…

—

no wonder the intel agencies tried to stop Trump becoming President and no wonder they are still attempting to overthrow him.

5 Mar: Bloomberg: Markets Aren’t Buying Denial on Climate Change
Investors who put money at risk behave as if it’s not a hoax.
By Noah Smith
How big of a threat do Americans think climate change is? On the political left, and increasingly in the center, almost everyone now agrees that it represents a significant danger to the American way of life. On the right, skepticism remains, as evidenced by the committee President Donald Trump has proposed setting up to assess the threat. The Presidential Committee on Climate Security will be headed by William Happer, a physicist who argues that worry over global warming is unfounded. One policy adviser for the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, crowed that the panel would rebut “the dishonest/know-nothing climate bedwetters.”…

Supporters of the Green New Deal, as well as many of those who have proposed alternative plans, believe that the danger is so great that it warrants a transformation of much of the world’s economy and industry. However, a recent poll by the Associated Press and the University of Chicago found that just 16 percent of Americans would be willing to pay $100 a month to fight climate change. If the average American paid that amount, it would total only $390 billion a year — much less than the $1 trillion or more needed annually to shift to carbon-free energy, industry and agriculture.

But poll responses can be tricky. People may not have a good idea of how much they’d really pay, and opinions on highly politicized issues like climate change can be driven by partisan identity. Experiments have shown that when people are paid to get factual questions right, partisan gaps decrease substantially. So in order to assess real beliefs about climate change — which is an important task for both messaging and policy making — it helps to look at financial markets, which force people to put their money where their mouth is.

???In May 2015, I noted a study by three economists showing that houses exposed to sea level rise are consistently priced at a discount. The discount is small — about 7 percent less than other houses near the sea that are less vulnerable. But it represented some hard evidence that markets believe that climate change will have major consequences in the upcoming years.

Now, a new paper (LINK) by economists Wolfram Schlenker and Charles Taylor provides some more evidence. Instead of sea level rise, they looked at temperature. Since 1999, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange has allowed people to trade futures based on the weather. The most common contracts allow investors to bet on the number of hot and cold days in a month in various cities in and outside of the U.S. The prices on these futures give a measurement of investors’ temperature predictions.

The authors found that the futures prices tended to be very accurate in terms of predicting the weather, especially the number of cold days. They then compared the futures prices to the predictions of climate scientists themselves, as measured by a database called CMIP5. They found that the futures prices followed the same warming trend that the scientific models predicted a decade in advance.

This agreement between markets and models is important, because it means that investors either believe what the models say, or rely on other data to draw the same conclusion. By refusing to bet that recent warm years were an anomaly that will revert to the mean, market participants are basically ignoring conservative claims that climate scientists have misled the public to exaggerate the threat of warming. When forced to bet, investors bet on warming.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean that markets believe that the impact of climate change will be as severe as many predict…READ ONhttps://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-05/markets-don-t-buy-republican-skepticism-on-climate-change

24 Feb: The Daily Princetonian: Global warming denier William Happer *64 appointed to climate panel
By Bill Huang
***Although Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist, he has nevertheless been vocal on the topic…
In a later interview with the Guardian, Happer said that “there’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult.”
His fellow colleagues at the University disagree. Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, claimed, “[many] studies have made a strong case that various aspects of climate change have an effect on national security” and that “with respect to climate science and scientists, [Happer] is not only unknowledgeable but appears to have become unmoored.”

When asked about opposing scientific consensus, Happer wrote in an email to the ‘Prince’ that “I often think of the paper, ‘Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein’ (A Hundred Authors against Einstein).” He then quoted Einstein’s adage, “if I am wrong, one scientist would be sufficient.”
Happer added that “I am especially proud of Princeton for providing a safe home.”…

Organizations such as the Center for Climate and Security have voiced opposition against such a committee, criticizing the move as politically motivated. An executive for the center added that “a rigorous independent panel of credible climate and national security experts to study the broader security implications of climate on a higher level” would be excellent.

Claire Wayner ’22 described Happer’s appointment as “a huge step backwards.”
“I think it’s disappointing that Professor Happer is taking such a strong, politicized stance against a phenomenon widely accepted by 97 percent of scientists,“ said Wayner.
Although Wayner believes that, in much of his previous work, Happer “tries to present a balanced viewpoint,“ she believes his appointment will make consensus on climate change difficult.

As the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics Emeritus, Happer helped pioneer the study of spin-polarized atoms and their applications in atomic physics. He has served on the JASON advisory group since 1976, serving as its chair from 1987 to 1990, and was the director of energy research for the Department of Energy from 1991 to 1993. He obtained a Ph.D. in Physics from the University in 1964.http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2019/02/happler-picked-as-chair-of-climate-panel

from comments:

OtherWay:
More blatant bias in the “news” section.
When will the Prince editors learn that it just looks pathetic to call people names?
“Climate alarmists upset that somebody with a critical mind appointed to committee; wanted a brainwashed rubber stamp panel to cry woe without evidence.”

Matt Maschinot:
***”Although Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist” -
Climate Science IS physics. The best theory of climate change, and the only one that actually fits the data, is that high energy cosmic rays cause ionization of aerosols, which leads to increased low level clouds and a higher Earth albedo. And that this process is regulated by the Suns magnetic field.
They have actually seen this effect when CME’s (Coronal Mass Ejections) block cosmic rays there is a week long period of lesser low level cloud coverage. The larger effect on climate is driven by changes in the Heliosphere, when it is larger fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth, and fewer low level clouds form, and the temperature goes up. When the Heliospere is weaker more cosmic rays reach the lower atmosphere leading to more clouds forming, a larger albedo, and cooler temperatures.
Climate Change is 100% about physics. But the subject is being driven by what Eisenhower called “the Scientific-Technological Elite”, who are driven more by government funding than scientific curiosity.

“I will write my proposals which will have in the middle of them all this work, yeah but on the fringes will tell some untruths about what it might do because that’s the only way it’s going to get funded and you know I’ve got a job to do, and that’s the way I’ve got to do it. It’s a shame isn’t it?”
(UK, Professor)

“If you can find me a single academic who hasn’t had to bullshit or bluff or lie or embellish in order to get grants, then I will find you an academic who is in trouble with his Head of Department. If you don’t play the game, you don’t do well by your university. So anyone that’s so ethical that they won’t bend the rules in order to play the game is going to be in trouble, which is deplorable.”
(Australia, Professor)

“We’ll just find some way of disguising it, no we’ll come out of it alright, we always bloody do, it’s not that, it’s the moral tension it places people under.”
(UK, Professor)

“They’re just playing games – I mean, I think it’s a whole load of nonsense, you’re looking for short term impact and reward so you’re playing a game… it’s over inflated stuff.”
(Australia, Professor)

“Then I’ve got this bit that’s tacked on… That might be sexy enough to get funded but I don’t believe in my heart that there’s any correlation whatsoever… There’s a risk that you end up tacking bits on for fear of the agenda and expectations when it’s not really where your heart is and so the project probably won’t be as strong.”
(Australia, Professor)

As it was said earlier, climate change doesn’t cause bushfires. However, bushfires create CO2 which the greens and people of similar views keep telling us causes climate change. The words “gold plated proof” were used recently used that CO2 causes climate change. But the greens and other people of similar views also don’t allow burning during the cooler seasons, which has been proven to reduce the severity and incidence of summer bushfires. Therefore, based on the logic of the greens, bushfires create climate change, and the greens by their opposition to cool season burning, are contributing to that climate change.

Logic won’t work with the climate justice crew as you can’t reason people out of a position they weren’t reasoned into. Really all that you can do which may have some effect is laugh at them but, sadly, they are a pestilence which has arrived courtesy of the education system having been destroyed and we have to endure their idiocy until that distant day when they come to understand their beliefs are rubbish and that they need help.

6 Mar: PV Mag: Victoria changes planning rules for large-scale wind and solar
Under the new planning mechanism adopted by the Victorian government, permits will be required for the power lines that connect new large-scale wind and solar generators to the grid. The public will be involved in the process of deciding power line routes.
by Marija Maisch
Minister for Planning Richard Wynne said changes had been made to state planning rules to ensure planning permits would now be required for the power lines that connect new large-scale generators to the electricity network. Previously, there was no requirement for a planning permit to build power lines that operate at less than 220,000 volts…

The government says these changes bring Victorian regulation into line with other states and will only apply to new planning permit applications for electricity generators, not retrospectively to existing planning permits…

6 Mar: PV Mag: Sunshine Energy: “A $1.5 billion project…we cannot get that kind of money from Australia”
Following a sod-turning ceremony that took place without much fanfare in south-east Queensland two weeks ago, Sunshine Energy Australia CEO Anthony John Youssef provides some detail on a 1.5 GW solar PV and 500 MWh energy storage project. While light on details about the financing structure, Youssef sets out the proposed construction timeline that, he hopes, will not be thwarted by two appeals lodged against the development.
by Marija Maisch
Q: Who is handling the EPC duties on the project and who are your preferred equipment suppliers – modules, inverters, trackers, energy storage?

A: …As for the grid-connected energy storage facility, we are looking to install around 143 batteries of 4 MW capacity housed in a 40-foot shipping container. The battery is around 572 MW at this stage and the cost is estimated at $500 million, but there may be variations once the final design is completed. The energy storage technology we will use has been patented by our project head consultant, Dr Ruisong Xu.

Q: According to a company extract from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Sunshine Energy Australia’s principle shareholder is Hong Kong-based Eastern Union Limited. Can you say something about this entity?

A: In due time, we’ll be able to divulge all shareholders, but right now we are just trying to get the project going. This is a $1.5 billion dollar project [revised down from $3.5 billion in the initial estimation before costs fell], and we cannot get that kind of money from Australia, so we had to reach out. That’s all I can say for now…

Q: There is an online petition launched against the development by a land owner, Anthony Crombie, which has been signed by 242 people. Crombie has also taken Sunshine Energy and Somerset Council to the Planning and Environment Court in an attempt to see the development approval rescinded. Is that correct?

Guardian doesn’t even describe Lucas as “Green Party”, as she competes with AOC for CAGW fervour:

4 Mar: Guardian: Parliament must declare a climate emergency – not ignore it
Westminster’s lacklustre approach is incredible. We need nothing short of a transformation of the way we live our lives
by Caroline Lucas
(Caroline Lucas is the MP for Brighton Pavilion)
In the US, congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has reinvigorated the idea of a Green New Deal – an initiative I was proud to have co-founded 10 years ago here in the UK…
In 2019, we face an even bigger challenge. To avoid climate catastrophe, we must go beyond what is considered politically possible. A Green New Deal would mobilise resources on a scale unprecedented in peacetime, to tackle the climate emergency and address spiralling inequality. It would involve huge investment in clean energy, warm homes and affordable public transport – delivering a decent, well-paid job to everyone who wants one. It would rebuild once proud communities that have been hollowed out by deindustrialisation and austerity, allowing them to thrive as part of a collective endeavour to protect the planet. And it would protect and restore threatened habitats and carbon sinks like forests, wild places, soils and oceans…

To do this, we must be able to leverage whatever finance is necessary to tackle the crisis. This is not a Trumpian border wall emergency – this is a real emergency. Critics might denounce such a plan as fantasy politics – but I ask them, with just 11 years left to halve global climate emissions, what is your alternative?

Young people understand what’s needed to secure their futures. Last month, they went on school strike across the country to protest about government inaction on climate change…
Parliament must now declare a climate emergency. It must debate climate change regularly. It must develop the laws necessary to implement a Green New Deal and climate-proof every piece of legislation. And the government must ensure climate change is a priority in all departmental and cabinet decision-making. But government and parliament will only act if we tell them to. So talk about climate breakdown – to your friends, your family, your neighbours and your colleagues. Join the school strikes. Join peaceful direct action initiatives like Extinction Rebellion. Write to your MP. Write to your councillors. Write to your banks. This is an emergency. Let’s treat it like one.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

how you report on a tiny group when it suits the CAGW agenda. child grooming, right down to the pics.

4 Mar: Guardian: Adults failed to take climate action. Meet the young activists stepping up
Some are calling climate change this generation’s civil rights movement. These are the young activists leading the charge
by Adrian Horton, Dream McClinton and Lauren Aratani
Despite being barely two years old, the Sunrise Movement has outpaced established environmental groups in the push to radically reshape the political landscape around climate change. Closely allied with new congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youth-led Sunrise Movement has helped set out a sweepingly ambitious plan to address climate change in the form of the Green New Deal.

The movement comprises a small core team of young organizers, supported by a larger group of several hundred volunteers. The group’s elevation of the Green New Deal has clearly riled Trump, who has falsely but repeatedly claimed that the plan would result in the banning of cars, air travel and even cows.
The Guardian spoke to Sunrise members on how the organization has shaken the political and environmental establishment in the US…

Marcela Mulholland, 21, Fort Lauderdale, Florida:
A few days after Trump won, I just felt super radicalized. I couldn’t believe that climate change was happening and people were pretending as if we weren’t on this downward spiral. So I went to school wearing a sign that said “Climate change is real.” My teacher is a huge environmental activist and ***she told me about Sunrise.

5 Mar: NY Post: Ocasio-Cortez aide accused of funneling $1M into private accounts
By Mark Moore
The transfers were made by Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, and may have run afoul of the Federal Election Campaign Act that places a limit of $5,000 on contributions from political action committees to candidates, the Washington Examiner reported Tuesday (LINK)…
The National Legal and Policy Center wants the FEC to audit the two operations in question — Brand New Congress PAC and ***Justice Democrats PAC — claiming they were part of “an elaborate scheme to avoid proper disclosure of campaign expenditures.”…

I live on the fringe of a forest no longer used for any purpose. My policy is to keep a good area slashed and not to burn the paddocks or bamboo, as that only encourages the wrong species. The forest (called Many Burnings in the old language) is another matter. The fact that it hasn’t blown up near me in many decades does not mean it’s not a bomb. Leaving it unburnt suits me if my firebreak is ok, but who can say what happens when it eventually goes up. The land adapted to natural burns, then to methodical aboriginal burns, then to hotter burns with less canopy because of timber-getting…now there’s total neglect with regrowth and nobody knows for sure what comes of that. There’s no “natural” and certainly no “pristine” in any absolute sense.

There are no resources and no management by Forestry or Nat Parks (yeah, we have a Bob Carr park or two), no economic imperative now that timber can’t be taken, so forget trail maintenance. I’m one of the very few who have spent a lot of time in our local forest though many live near it and pass through it. The fact is, people care about what they see and couldn’t care less if they’re not seeing it. Some felling or clearing of koala habitat near roads can lead to objections while the hundreds of acres of unviewed forest can be infested with dogs and cats and nobody cares. You can get prosecuted for knocking over a tallowood to make a decent drain, but you’re not allowed to even think of dealing with the real problem of ferals.

As far as I’m concerned, if people have been allowed to purchase land and build they should be allowed to protect and get access. We’re no less natural than the hodge-podge of innovations and transitions people like to call “natural”. The cute little swampies with their uber-cute joeys are around my house because lantana has protected them from dogs while larger macropods have not been so lucky. The goannas and pythons thrive because nobody eats them any more, which is a total innovation from the state of affairs two hundred years back. I don’t keep chooks so I let the big reptiles live in my roof to keep possums out of it.

Burn, don’t burn…but the priority is people, even if they’re just tree-changers who don’t belong “naturally” or “economically”. Nature is bunk, so is economics. There’s just the bush as it happens to be now, and what you want to make of it. The fact that globalists hate the idea of people scattered away from towns is reason enough to stay out here. Do what the Luciferians hate.

4 Mar: BBC: Climate change: California wildfires ‘can now happen in any year’
By Paul Rincon
Wet winters are no longer a guide to the severity of wildfires in California, a new study suggests.
Increased temperatures due to global warming and more effective efforts to contain fires mean there’s now more dry wood to burn.
This means that large wildfires of the kind seen in 2018 can now happen in any year, regardless of how wet the previous winter was.
The researchers say huge blazes may be a sign of things to come.
Their study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (LINK)…

Now, the build-up of vegetation – the fuel – has combined with the effects of rising temperatures due to climate change to produce a situation where any year may have large fires, no matter how wet the previous winter…

Climate scientist Dr Ioana Colfescu, from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) at the University of Leeds, UK, told BBC News: “They find that whether precipitation is enhanced or reduced in the case of a high CO2 future, California faces increasing fire potential due to thermodynamic warming and this can be a mechanism for the recent California fires (despite wet extremes).”
She said the “excellent study” added a lot to what was currently known about the effects of long-term climate change on California fires…https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47444463

Gee Kinky, why should I take anything you say seriously. Firstly there is your nom-de-plume and then there are statements like this

“My first experience of bushfire was at the age of two.
I can still recall the flames in the trees, the tents of several families we were staying with, the wind and sparks and a strange absence of fear.”

I’m happy to stand by my posts, mistakes and all. As for the alleged harassment and ridicule, Hunh. I only debate ideas, which is something only a few on this site seem capable of, and I never descend into abuse, harassment and ridicule, although I’m tempted. If you read that in my posts, then that is merely your interpretation, it is not what I said.

You do not debate ideas, you run away from anything you disagree with as soon as you find yourself on the losing end.

You STILL haven’t provide one piece of empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 affects the climate in any way whatsoever, but your comments STILL carry that anti-fact nonsense on a regular basis.

You are a low-level nil-science attention-seeking troll….

You know, and everyone else knows that is your only purpose here.

——————

The Gruniad is NOT to be trusted in anything it prints.

Maybe they are correct for once…

… but I will definitely wait until a reputable news source has this piece of good news before I believe it.

5 Mar: Guardian: Heatwaves sweeping oceans ‘like wildfires’, scientists reveal
Extreme temperatures destroy kelp, seagrass and corals – with alarming impacts for humanity
by Damian Carrington
The number of heatwaves affecting the planet’s oceans has increased sharply, scientists have revealed, killing swathes of sea-life like “wildfires that take out huge areas of forest”…

The research found heatwaves are becoming more frequent, prolonged and severe, with the number of heatwave days tripling in the last couple of years studied. In the longer term, the number of heatwave days jumped by more than 50% in the 30 years to 2016, compared with the period of 1925 to 1954.
As heatwaves have increased, kelp forests, seagrass meadows and coral reefs have been lost…
“You have heatwave-induced wildfires that take out huge areas of forest, but this is happening underwater as well,” said Dan Smale at the Marine Biological Association in Plymouth, UK, who led the research published in Nature Climate Change (LINK). “You see the kelp and seagrasses dying in front of you. Within weeks or months they are just gone, along hundreds of kilometres of coastline.”…

Dr Éva Plagányi at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia also likened ocean heatwaves to wildfires. “Frequent big hits can have long-lasting effects,” she said. “This study shows that record-breaking events are becoming the new normal.”…
“In the space of one week, scientific publications have underscored that unless we take evasive action, our future oceans will have fewer fish, fewer whales and frequent dramatic shifts in ecological structure will occur, with concerning implications for humans who depend on the ocean,” said Plagányi.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/04/heatwaves-sweeping-oceans-like-wildfires-scientists-reveal

lol. the future – not according to environmentalist zealots, but according to serious, considered, globalist McKinsey:

4 Mar: Financial Times: A radical outlook needs strategy to match
by Nick Butler
(The writer is an energy commentator for the FT and chair of the King’s Policy Institute at King’s College London)
Energy companies should be planning for an industrial revolution driven by renewables.
By 2035, renewables (solar and wind) will account for more than 50 per of global power generation; electric vehicles will be the low-cost option for car, van and small-truck drivers; oil demand will be declining; and gas demand will have peaked. Total energy demand will be plateauing despite a growing global economy and a still-rising population.

***This is not, as you might imagine, the latest summary of aspirations from a campaign group such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. Nor is it an ambitious claim by one of the renewables trade associations. In fact, all the statements above are drawn from ***a serious, considered projection produced by McKinsey, the global management consultancy.

The quality of the McKinsey energy outlook for 2019 lies in its internal consistency and the clarity of its conclusions. The view presented is simple but entirely credible because of how it is constructed. The authors justify each judgment with a logic that is built on a bottom-up forecast, region by region and sector and sector.
Crucially, the study is based on economics rather than public policy…

The key is the falling cost of renewables, which are set “to become cheaper than existing coal and gas in most regions by 2030”, McKinsey says. That will encourage electrification across the global economy, driving efficiency by replacing less productive forms of supply…

The revolution is happening now. Establishing a corporate strategy for producing value in very different market conditions should be a priority for all in the sector.

We are entering the season when energy companies produce their annual reports and hold their AGMs. Shareholders, large and small, would be well advised to ask the managers and non-executives who work for them to set out in detail their plans for the transition. I would be delighted to publish a collection of the answers.https://www.ft.com/content/f3a201d6-3a7b-11e9-b72b-2c7f526ca5d0

McKinsey & Co: Global Energy Perspective 2019
The Global Energy Perspective Reference Case provides our view on how the energy transition will unfold.
A changing landscape
Energy systems around the world are going through rapid transitions that affect many aspects of our lives. The continuation and acceleration of these shifts will bring important changes to the way we fuel our cars, heat our homes, and power our industries in the coming decades. Our Reference Case provides our consensus view on how energy demand will evolve…
DOWNLOADShttps://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/global-energy-perspective-2019

Australian ‘alchemy’ turns carbon dioxide into coal
The Australian – 15 hours ago
In a feat of modern alchemy, Australian scientists have found a way to rewind the emissions clock” by turning carbon dioxide into coal… by Graham Lloyd.

Proof that Graham Lloyd has a sense of humour.
A ridiculous idea that a new catalyst can change thermodynamics and, thanks to possible ‘renewable energy’ results in perpetual motion, but see the number of commntators who think it would work.

4 Mar: UK Times: Drax fails emissions test at US pellets plant
by Emily Gosden
The owner of Britain’s biggest power station has admitted breaching environmental rules in the United States after one its wood pellet plants significantly exceeded air pollution limits…
Drax has admitted that its Morehouse Bioenergy plant in Louisiana, which was opened in 2015 and produces about 500,000 tonnes of pellets each year, produces particulate emissions about four times higher than permitted.
Will Gardiner, chief executive, said: “The emissions are higher than the permit would allow. We are working on how to solve that problem.”…https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/393d46f8-3de5-11e9-889c-a7e27b96460c

28 Feb: LA Times: California’s San Bernardino County slams the brakes on big solar projects
by Sammy Roth
California’s largest county has banned the construction of large solar and wind farms on more than 1 million acres of private land, bending to the will of residents who say they don’t want renewable energy projects industrializing their rural desert communities northeast of Los Angeles.
Thursday’s 4-1 vote by San Bernardino County’s Board of Supervisors highlighted a challenge California could face as it seeks to eliminate the burning of planet-warming fossil fuels…

Dozens of local residents spoke in support of the proposed ban, known as Renewable Energy Policy 4.10. They came from high desert communities such as Daggett, Joshua Tree and Lucerne Valley, where existing solar projects are seen by many as eyesores that destroy desert ecosystems and fuel larger dust storms…
“These vast open areas are precious for their natural, historical and recreational qualities. But they are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter the damage that industrial-scale renewable energy projects would cause,” Fairchild told the supervisors. “Once destroyed, these landscapes can never be brought back.”…http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-san-bernardino-solar-renewable-energy-20190228-story.html

4. A K Street divide
A Financial Times story this morning explores how the refining industry’s main trade group opposes carbon tax proposals that are backed by some large members including Exxon and BP.
Why it matters: The story on the posture of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers highlights a policy divide within the industry.
•Some big companies are supporting a plan promoted by the nonprofit Climate Leadership Council (CLC) that would: impose a carbon tax, return revenues to the public, phase out many carbon regulations, and shield companies from some legal claims.

But, but, but: “Chet Thompson of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers said a carbon tax would be ‘bad public policy’ that raised prices at the pump. He called it ‘fanciful’ to describe such a tax as revenue-neutral,” FT reports…

Our thought bubble: The FT piece is a reminder that Shell, which also backs the CLC plan, is reviewing its trade group memberships to ensure they don’t “undermine its support for the objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change.”
•The company plans to release the results of the review, which stems from a wider agreement with activist investors, during the first quarter of this year.

***6. Latest in climate polling
The share of U.S. adults who believe the GOP’s position on climate change is outside the mainstream is higher than it was 4 years ago, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released over the weekend.

Why it matters: The results arrive as the 2020 election cycle is gathering steam and the Trump administration is moving ahead with efforts to dismantle Obama-era climate policies.

By the numbers:
•On the Republican party position: 63% of all respondents believe the GOP position is outside the mainstream, up from 54% who held that view when the pollsters asked the same question in October of 2015. 29% say it’s in the mainstream and 7% weren’t sure.
•On the Democratic party position: 35% of respondents said the Democratic position is outside the mainstream, 56% said it’s in the mainstream and 8% weren’t sure.

The big picture: “The question was intended to record general perceptions rather than views of individual proposals, such as the Green New Deal for addressing climate change proposed by several Democratic lawmakers,” the WSJ reports.
•”Opinions could change as each party converges on detailed positions during the presidential campaign or congressional session,” per WSJ.https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-generate-f956d915-af54-4786-925a-b66b16b2d6c0.html

1 Mar: Bloomberg: Oil Industry Told to Loosen Up on Green Investments to Survive
By Mathew Carr; With assistance by Kelly Gilblom, Javier Blas, and Lars Paulsson
Oil and gas companies under pressure by investors to curtail investment in fossil fuels should loosen their purse strings for green energy, according to Accenture.
Managers of traditional energy businesses need to spend in areas that attract new customers, such as batteries, auto charging and renewable electricity, said Andrew Smart, the managing director of global energy industry at the consulting group. Otherwise, they risk the “dirty” part of their companies strangling growth opportunities, he said.

“The old has a habit of killing the new,” Smart said in an interview at the IP Week energy conference in London.
The pressure on conventional fossil-fuel providers is increasing…
“There’s a lot of potential disruption,” Smart said. “As demand for the core product comes down, so does the price.”…

Smart declined to name companies doing a good job in the transition. Shell’s Mark Gainsborough, executive vice president for New Energies, estimates that the company will be able to generate returns from non-regulated electricity of between 8 percent and 12 percent at some point, though he wouldn’t specify when…
The industry faces a “crisis of perception” and there’s a growing risk the financial community will turn against fossil fuels, the chief executive officer of Saudi Aramco said Tuesday at the conference…

To Frederic Samama, a French banker who’s taken a particular interest in sovereign funds and who co-heads institutional clients coverage at Amundi SA, Europe’s biggest asset manager, it’s obvious it should, since the fund is built on the state’s petroleum revenues.
“You have been set up to diversify the assets,” he said in a phone interview on Monday. “Why do you extract oil if it is to invest into oil companies?”

The proposal by Norway’s central bank, which manages the fund, sent shock waves through international markets back in 2017, and has sparked considerable debate in the Nordic country, which is western Europe’s biggest oil and gas producer.
While the biggest political parties have been cautious in expressing their views, an expert panel advised against the move, arguing it would be ineffective as insurance against a drop in oil prices and that it could challenge the fund’s governance model.
The Conservative-led government’s conclusion and parliament’s ultimate decision are due in the coming months…

Norway’s central bank has insisted that its proposal is motivated solely by financial considerations about oil-price exposure and not risks related to climate change. The fund relates to climate risk in other ways, such as expectations to how companies report and through ethical rules that can lead to exclusions. It also has environmental mandates, and may soon be allowed to invest in unlisted renewable-energy infrastructure.

4 Mar: ClimateChangeNews: Burning wood for power breaches EU treaty, new lawsuit claims
Plaintiffs from six European countries and the US argue biomass does more harm than good and should be not be counted as a renewable energy source
By Megan Darby
Plaintiffs from six European countries and the US argue that burning biomass for heat and power is a false solution to climate change. The EU Renewable Energy Directive promotes logging of ancient forests, according to the brief, contravening the bloc’s higher principles and individuals’ rights.

The suit challenges a major plank of efforts to generate 32% of EU energy from renewable sources by 2030. Nearly two thirds of EU renewables come from various forms of bioenergy, with more projects in planning.
“We are burning up our forest carbon sink and injecting it into the atmosphere,” said Mary Booth, lead science advisor to the case and president of the US-based Partnership for Policy Integrity. “There is forest biomass being shipped thousands of miles to meet biomass demand in the EU. We think that needs to stop.”

At the point where it is burned, wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal. However, the EU treats wood burning as carbon neutral, on the basis trees will grow back, absorbing carbon dioxide from the air…

5 Mar: Guardian: Dear Europe, Brexit is a lesson for all of us: it’s time for renewal
We can’t let nationalists exploit public anger. I want an ambitious project that lets the people really take back control
by Emmanuel Macron
Citizens of Europe, if I am taking the liberty of addressing you directly, it is not only in the name of the history and values that unite us, but because time is of the essence. A few weeks from now the European elections will be decisive for the future of our continent…

Yet never has Europe been in such danger. Brexit stands as the symbol of that. It symbolises the crisis of a Europe that has failed to respond to its peoples’ need for protection from the major shocks of the modern world. It also symbolises the European trap. The trap lies not in being part of the European Union; the trap is in the lie and the irresponsibility that can destroy it. Who told the British people the truth about their post-Brexit future? Who spoke to them about losing access to the EU market? Who mentioned the risks to peace in Ireland of restoring the border? Retreating into nationalism offers nothing; it is rejection without an alternative. And this is the trap that threatens the whole of Europe: the anger mongers, backed by fake news, promise anything and everything…

Recover the spirit of progress…
Getting back on track also means spearheading the environmental cause. Will we be able to look our children in the eye if we do not also clear our climate debt? The EU needs to set its target – zero carbon by 2050 and pesticides halved by 2025 – and adapt its policies accordingly with such measures as a European Climate Bank to finance the ecological transition, a European food safety force to improve our food controls and, to counter the lobby threat, independent scientific assessment of substances hazardous to the environment and health. This imperative needs to guide all our action: from the Central Bank to the European commission, from the European budget to the Investment Plan for Europe, all our institutions need to have the climate as their mandate…

4 Mar: Reuters: CORRECTED-Leading UK charities seek legal clarity on ethical investments
By Sarah Shearman
LONDON, March 4 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Leading British charities and faith groups called on the government on Monday to review the law governing their investments to ensure they are ethically sound and do not contribute to climate change.
In an open letter to the government, a group of about 19 British charities and faith groups said they needed specific legal guidance on whether charities should invest in companies that contribute to climate change… READ ONhttps://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-finance-charities/corrected-leading-uk-charities-seek-legal-clarity-on-ethical-investments-idUKL5N20O3TH

not funny. behind paywall:

4 Mar: UK Telegraph: Lloyd’s of London faces pressure over controversial Australian coal mine
By Lucy Burton, banking editor
Climate change lawyers have warned Lloyd’s of London that it could face legal action if it gets involved in the controversial Carmichael coalmine in Australia.
In a letter seen by The Telegraph, lawyers for ***ClientEarth have urged the insurance market to publish its stance on the mine in north Queensland’s Galilee basin, which would have become the world’s largest coal mine had it gone ahead as originally planned.

***Wikipedia: ClientEarth is a non-profit environmental law organisation, founded in 2008, with offices in London, Brussels, Warsaw, and Beijing. In 2012 BusinessGreen gave ClientEarth its NGO of the Year award. In 2013 ClientEarth was awarded the Law Society’s LSA Award for Excellence in Environmental Responsibility…
Employees of ClientEarth include Professor Ludwig Kramer and CEO James Thornton; the latter was named by the New Statesman in 2009 as one of “ten people who could change the world”…
Coldplay are patrons of the organisation. Brian Eno is one of the group’s trustees…

Wikipedia: Ludwig Krämer was in the employment of the European Commission from 1972 – 2004…
Krämerhas authored around 20 books and handbooks and approximately 150 articles on EC environmental law. His “EU Environmental Law” is now in its 8th edition (2016).
As at 2006, Krämer is a Professor in European and German environmental law at the University of Bremen. He is a Visiting Professor at University College London. He also lectures at College of Europe, Bruges in Belgium. He also teaches at a number of other universities, including those located in Copenhagen, Ghent, Pécs, Stockholm, Seville, London and Montreal…

Wikipedia: James Thornton
The New Statesman named James as one of ten people who could change the world…
The Financial Times awarded him its Special Achievement Award at the 2016 Innovative Lawyer Awards. He is a member of the bars of New York, California, and the Supreme Court of the United States, and a Solicitor of England and Wales. He is a Conservation Fellow of the Zoological Society of London and a fellow of Ashoka, the network of leaders in social innovations. His latest book, Client Earth is described by Nature as “a tantalizing glimpse of how a variety of strategies can converge to create a global environmental enforcement effort…
Thornton appeared on stage with Brian Eno at the Luminous Festival, Sydney Opera House, in 2009 to discuss the environment. He also featured in the BBC2 Arena documentary of Brian Eno. At this time Thornton wrote for The Sydney Morning Herald on why humanity needs a new renaissance…

2 Nov 2018: UK Telegraph: Boss of taxpayer-funded green charity sees pay soar 50pc to £232,000
by Steven Swinford
The head of a taxpayer-funded environmental charity has become one of the highest paid bosses in the voluntary sector after his pay package rose by 50 per cent to £232,000.
James Thornton, the head of ClientEarth, is now the highest paid green charity boss in Britain with his pay outstripping the heads of Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth.

lots of ClientEarth Boards to check out; none funnier than the Emeritus Board:

ClientEarth: Emeritus Board
(ONE PERSON)
Emily Young FRBS is an internationally acclaimed sculptor.
She works with natural materials, addressing contemporary issues relating to Man’s relationship with both deep time and the natural environment, marrying science and art. She has described the Earth as being a temple, and humankind as its more-or-less conscious devotees.
In November 2017, Emily Young became our first Emeritus Board member, having spent 10 years on ClientEarth’s board.https://www.clientearth.org/people/young-emily/

OT and it must be true because I heard it on the ABC , Bloomberg is a better candidate for the Democrats because he’s a moderate .
And there is no bias in the ABC and they’re being persecuted for nothing which is affecting moral within the organisation.
If Bloomberg is a moderate I guess Attila the Hun was progressive.

26 Feb: ABC: Sophie Coombs loved her Penrith life, this is why she’s left it behind
By Liv Casben
After 10 years of living in and loving Penrith, Sophie Coombs has moved her family out of the heat.
The past three years in Penrith have been among the warmest on record.
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) records show annual mean maximum temperatures in the western Sydney suburb have increased by approximately 1.1 degrees Celsius since 1980…
“It’s just getting overdeveloped, so there’s less trees than there were,” she said…

Lisa Harrold, who has lived in the area for four decades, said the heat had become unbearable…
“We find with the increased density of houses [and] road systems, it doesn’t cool down overnight.”…

Professor David Ellsworth from the University of Western Sydney, who studies the impact of urban heat, said it’s not just about planting new trees.
“Planting five million is a good goal to have, but what we need is five million big trees and they’re not big immediately,” he said.
“We also have to really think about the large trees that we have, retaining what we can, and keeping these parts of the west cool.”
He and his team have been mapping urban heat for the University of Western Sydney in an attempt to inform councils on how to reduce the heat island effect…
Lisa Harrold: “We seem to be concreting western Sydney faster than we can actually slow down that pace.”…https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/this-young-mum-is-leaving-penrith-because-of-the-heat/10843504

Daily Mail jumps on it:

26 Feb: Daily Mail: Family claims they’ve been forced to leave western Sydney because it’s too HOT – and residents blame over-development for the soaring summer temperatures
By Adam Mccleery
Bureau of Meteorology data shows that since 1995 January and February temperatures in Penrith have gradually increased, with the hottest January being recorded in 2019.
The 1996 mean maximum for Penrith in January was 28C which has increased to 34.6C in 2019.
According to the data January 2019′s mean maximum of 39.9C is now the highest mean maximum for Penrith…https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6745381/Family-forced-leave-western-Sydney-HOT-overdeveloped.html

and again:

4 Mar: Daily Mail: Frustrated mum is forced to move away from her dream western Sydney home – because rising temperatures from new property developments means her son plays inside all summer
•A Sydney mother says she was forced to leave the city’s west because of heat
•Penrith, once lauded for its spacious blocks of land, has been heavily developed
•Sophie Coombs, said son Asher was much happier now in Sydney’s inner-west
•The three-year-old has more access to shady parks and cooling waters
•Scientists say playground surfaces in western Sydney heating to over 100C
•From December 1 to February 27, there were 28 days over 35 degrees in Penrith
By Hannah Moore For Daily Mail Australia
Sophie Coombs (left) says she moved from Penrith so her son Asher, three (right) did not have to suffer through the stifling heat enveloping western Sydney
Professor David Ellsworth said air temperatures in western Sydney are often much higher – on extreme days, pushing 45 to 46 degrees.
But these temperatures are only intensified by the built-up environment in places such as Penrith and even Parramatta. The heat is absorbed by the buildings and ‘re-radiated’, warming the air, and creating an ‘urban island heat effect’.

Just watching the Bolt report , apparently the abc had the national press club address today with Anne Sommers who went into an anti Liberal tirade for much of her speech saying things that were untrue and further biased the abc in eyes of anyone not brainwashed by the left .
This might just be the straw that broke the camels back for the unbiased abc .

I think Ita’s head-knocking days are behind her. I don’t expect any great change of ABC policy. She is only the Chair too, not the manager. What the ABC Board does to fill in their meetings is anyone’s guess.

Didn’t have the patience to hear her out so I can’t say I saw the bias Bolt alleges though the direction of the polemic was consistent with it. An imponderable surprise was Michelle Guthrie’s presence in the audience; maybe she’s serious about getting her job back.